2. A full list of our reports to date in this Parliament
is set out in Appendix 1. Of these, we identified three reports
on which it was appropriate to seek further information from the
Government on the progress of implementation of recommendations.
These were our reports dealing with:

the impact in Northern Ireland of cross-border
road fuel price differentials;[4]
and

the operation of the Fair Employment (Northern
Ireland) Act 1989: Ten Years On.[5]

The memoranda submitted by the Northern Ireland Office,
in respect of the first and third reports, and by HM Treasury,
in respect of the second, are set out in Appendix 2. We consider
these further below.

3. This does not, however, represent the full extent
of our work following up previous inquiries. We have continued
to take a close interest in the Northern Ireland Prison Service,
on which we reported in November 1998.[6]
We took further evidence from the Service in October 1999[7]
and recently conducted a more extensive follow-up inquiry. We
expect to report on this shortly. We have also returned to the
subject of Northern Ireland public expenditure, the topic of our
first report of this Parliament.[8]
We have not looked further at the future composition, recruitment
and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a subject on which
we reported in July 1998,[9]
as this was extensively debated by the House in the context of
the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern
Ireland [10]
and the subsequent enactment of the Police (Northern Ireland)
Act 2000.

4. In Session 1999-2000, the scope of our remit was
substantially affected by the progress of devolution in Northern
Ireland. Under Direct Rule, Northern Ireland Office Ministers
were also responsible for the work of the Northern Ireland Departments.
The coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Northern
Ireland Act 1998 at midnight on 1-2 December 1999 transferred
responsibility for the Northern Ireland Departments to the Northern
Ireland Executive, which is answerable to the Northern Ireland
Assembly. Our report on devolution and the work of the Committee[11]
set out how we responded to this change in our remit. For the
period of suspension of the devolved government in Northern Ireland,
the functions of the Northern Ireland Departments were once again
subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State.
As a consequence, they were once again formally within our purview
for the period 12 February to 30 May 2000.

5. We have not embarked on any inquiry during a period
of devolved government which primarily relates to a "transferred
matter" within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
as such inquiries are properly matters for the Northern Ireland
Assembly. A number of our reports, including reports of previous
Sessions, have related to matters which are now transferred matters.
These include our reports on special needs education in Northern
Ireland,[12]
the livestock industry[13]
and the scrutiny of Northern Ireland Non-Departmental Public Bodies.[14]
The relevant committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly may wish
to draw on such reports, and the Government responses, as part
of their ongoing scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Departments.
The financial allocation for new railway rolling stock in 2000-01
and inward investment, the subjects of our Fourth and Fifth Reports
respectively of Session 1999-2000, became transferred matters
in the course of the inquiries. As each inquiry was at an advanced
stage when devolved government was restored, we decided that it
would be sensible to complete it, despite the change in political
responsibility.

7. When we examined the Secretary of State, in April
2000, on recent political developments in Northern Ireland,[16]
we asked about progress towards eliminating electoral malpractice.
The Secretary of State drew attention[17]
to the extension (available since November 1998) of the time for
the Chief Electoral Officer to check absent vote applications,
to the recruitment of extra staff to assist the Chief Electoral
Officer in his scrutiny function and to work to assess the adequacy
of his investigative powers. While restating that a 'smart card'
remained the Government's long-term objective, the Secretary of
State effectively ruled out its introduction before the next General
Election.[18]

8. The updating memorandum reports that, following
the evidence session, a Working Group was set up to develop a
range of initiatives intended to combat electoral abuse. The Group
produced proposals for a Bill to counter electoral fraud. Recent
discussions with political parties in Northern Ireland revealed
"broad agreement to the proposals", but "during
the course of these meetings, several new ideas or modifications
to current ideas were raised". The Northern Ireland Office
is also awaiting the views of both the Northern Ireland Human
Rights Commission and the Equality Commission on the proposals
of the Working Group. It is now preparing a response to the proposals
put forward in the course of its consultations with the political
parties and "considering the next steps".

9. Although we welcome the fact that the general
thrust of the Department's current proposals accord with our general
approach to the problem of reducing electoral fraud in Northern
Ireland, we are very concerned about the length of time it is
taking to secure any progress, even on such basic matters as replacing
the most vulnerable identification documents which currently entitle
a voter to a ballot paper. When we reported in March 1998, less
than a year after the General Election, we had a reasonable expectation
that rather more progress might have been made before the next
General Election in tackling the serious problems of electoral
malpractice than appears likely to be the case. Given the extensive
consultation that took place following publication of the Government's
review, we find the need for yet more rounds of consultation surprising,
and the level of progress disappointing. Given that it is now
unlikely that legislation can be introduced before the 2001-02
Parliamentary Session, at the earliest, we recommend the early
publication of a draft bill on measures to counter electoral fraud,
based on the proposals of the Working Group, modified to reflect
the Government's consideration of the points raised in the most
recent round of consultations.

11. Given the ongoing interest in Northern Ireland
in the problems caused by cross-border fuel price differentials,
we welcome the further work by Customs to produce updated estimates
of the revenue loss both from oils fraud and from legitimate cross-border
shopping. We look forward to receiving further information on
this in due course. We note that Customs has continued to adopt
a tough vehicle seizure policy and that they do not restore any
vehicle used to smuggle road fuels. In this context, we also note
that all legislation under which Customs operate has been examined
and that Customs consider that this is in compliance with the
provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

12. The updating memorandum reveals a welcome degree
of closer co-operation to tackle problems of oils fraud, both
within Northern Ireland and in terms of drawing on the experience
of other EU countries. We note, though, that a formal Memorandum
of Understanding between Customs and the Royal Ulster Constabulary,
which was under discussion at the time of the original response,
has not yet been concluded. Given that some fifteen months
have now elapsed since the Government replied to the report, we
should like to know what is holding up the conclusion of a Memorandum
of Understanding.

13. One of our original concerns was the apparent
ease with which the fiscal markers could be removed from gas oil.
We were therefore concerned to note in the Government response
that the European Union has selected a product, Solvent Yellow
124, for use as a common marker throughout the Union which is
slightly easier to launder than the marker currently used in the
United Kingdom, and which, in due course, the United Kingdom may
be obliged to introduce. We agree with the Government that
it would be unsatisfactory for the United Kingdom to be required
to adopt a marker which is easier to launder at the very time
when a more resistant marker is needed. We note that the testing
of the proposed common marker is not yet complete and that a decision
has yet to be taken by the Commission as to whether to adopt Solvent
Yellow 124 as the 'Euromarker'.We urge Customs to continue
to make robust representations to the Commission on the need for
a more secure marker for duty-rebated fuel. We agree with the
Government that Customs should press the Commission, if it adopts
Solvent Yellow 124 as the common marker, to begin another programme
to select a more robust marker. We concur with the Government
that Customs should also consider carefully how to implement any
use of Solvent Yellow 124 required, and whether the United Kingdom
should retain its current marker in addition. In this context,
we welcome the Government's assurance that it is likely that the
Commission will have no difficulty with Member States requiring
more than one marker.

15. We welcome the agreement between the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission on
a Memorandum of Understanding. Conclusion of such an agreement
was one of our recommendations. We note the progress made on designation
of public bodies under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act
1998, and that a further tranche of bodies is expected to be designated
in the near future. We support the Government's view that non-designation
should be the exception rather than the rule.

18. Besides our inquiries, we have also held two
'one-off' evidence sessions. The first[26]
was with the Secretary of State in April 2000 and ranged widely
over recent political developments in Northern Ireland. The second,[27]
in June 2000, was with Northern Ireland Office officials, and
dealt with resource accounting and budgeting, and the financial
provision in 2000-01 for the Northern Ireland Departments.

19. As in previous Sessions, we continued to take
evidence from major non-departmental public bodies in Northern
Ireland whose work was unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to
fall within the scope of more general inquiries. We held one such
session in Session 1999-2000, with the Northern Ireland Tourist
Board. However, with devolution, responsibility for all but a
handful of Northern Ireland non-departmental public bodies transferred
to the Northern Ireland Administration. In our First Report,[28]
we summarised our work to date, both formal evidence sessions
and informal visits, in this important area. Our future pattern
of inquiries will determine the extent to which we need to continue
with free-standing examinations of the non-departmental public
bodies remaining within our remit.

20. We have continued our practice of previous Sessions
of seeking to make regular visits to Northern Ireland, and of
taking formal evidence there. We made seven visits in all in the
course of the Session, at four of which formal evidence was taken.

22. As we have mentioned earlier, both our Fourth
and Fifth Reports, published in August 2000, related primarily
to matters which had been within the responsibility of the Secretary
of State at the time the inquiries started, but were the responsibility
of the Northern Ireland Administration at the time the reports
were published. We are continuing to give thought to the implications
of this in the context of securing responses.

27. Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 introduced
a new procedure for legislation by Order in Council on certain
categories of reserved matter. In essence, under this procedure,
the House and its Committees have an opportunity formally to consider,
and make representations on, a proposal for a draft Order before
the draft Order proper is laid before the House for approval.
Two such proposals have so far been laid before the House: a proposal
for a draft Financial Services (Northern Ireland) Order, laid
on 21 November 2000, and a proposal for a draft Life Sentences
(Northern Ireland) Order, laid on 15 January 2001.[31]

28. Throughout the period of Direct Rule, there
were periodic criticisms of the inflexibility of the Order in
Council procedure used for the bulk of Northern Ireland legislation.
We therefore welcome this new variant, which gives the House a
formal opportunity to influence the contents of certain draft
Orders in Council brought forward for approval. We shall consider
in each case whether an inquiry by us is appropriate and therefore
request that the Northern Ireland Office routinely send copies
of each proposal to us at the same time as it is formally laid
before the House. We recommend that there should be a presumption
that each such proposal will in any event be debated in the Northern
Ireland Grand Committee. We also recommend that consideration
be given to introducing into the Northern Ireland Grand Committee,
for use when considering proposals for draft Orders in Council,
a procedure similar to that used in European Standing Committees,
whereby Ministers of the Crown may make statements about the proposal
and answer questions thereon for a period, before the Committee
embarks on the debate. Use of such a procedure might make the
Committee's scrutiny even more effective.